Telangana High Court
P.Anii Raj, vs State Of Telangana, on 15 February, 2023
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD
FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND SIXTEEN
:PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANIS
WP .NO:9004 of 2016
Between:
1 P.Anil Raj, S/o P.E.Satyanarayana,
2 Khaja Sanaur Rahim S/o M.A.Rahim,
3 B.Venkateshwarlu, S/o B.Suryanarayana Murthy,
4 S.Sreenivasu, S/o S.Narsaiah,
..... Petitioners
AND
1 State of Telangana, Rep. by its Special Secretary to Government,
Municipal Administration & Urban Development Dept. Secretariat
Building, Hyderabad
2 Engineer-in-Chief (PH) State of Telangana, A.C.Guards, "Kashana",
Hyderabad
3 Commissioner & Special Officer, Greater Hyderabad Municipal
Corporation, C.C. Complex, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad
4 D.Lachiram, Dy.Executive Engineer, O/o Executive Engineer, Circle-
6, GHMC, Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad.
5 P.Mohan Reddy, Dy.Executive Engineer, O/o Executive Engineer,
PDWZ-2, GHMC Abids Municipal Complex, Hyderabad.
6 V.Narayana, Dy.Executive Engineer, O/o Executive Engineer,
Housing (RR-2), GHMC, NTPC Bhavan, Secunderabad, Hyderabad
7 Syed Faratullah, Dy.Executive Engineer, O/o SE, South Zone,
GHMC, Sardar Mahal, Near Charminar, Hyderabad
.....Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein, the High Court
may be pleased to grant appropriate relief more in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus declaring the G.O.Rt.No. 15, (Municipal Administration & Urban
Development (Cl) Department, dt. 06.01.2016 issued by the 1st Respondent
and all other consequential proceedings in so far as it relates to party
respondents is concerned as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional, discriminatory
violating Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the
same including the Orders of the Hon'ble Tribunal dt. 16.03.2016 in OA No. 8
of 2016 as erroneous and contrary to law and issue consequential directions
directing the Respondents to forthwith effect regular/temporary/on OHOP
promotions strictly based on the existing seniority and proposal sent by the
Head of the Department.
WPMP. NO. 11406 OF 2016:
Petition under Section 151 of C.P.C. praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in W.P. the High Court may be
pleased to suspend the operation of the G.O.Rt.No. 15, (Municipal
Administration & Urban Development (Cl) Department, dt. 06.01.2016 issued
by the 1st Respondent and all other consequential proceedings including the
orders of the Hon'ble Tribunal dt. 16.3.2016 passed in OA 481 of 2016,
pending disposal of WP No. 9004 of 2016 on the file of the High Court.
The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition
and the affidavit filed herein and upon hearing the arguments of Sri
P.V.Krishnaiah, Advocate for the Petitioners and of the GP for Services, (TG),
for the Respondents No.1 to 3, the Court made the following.
ORDER:
"It is somewhat consternating that while keeping the public health employees in-charge of higher posts under the scheme called "On His Own Pay" (OHOP), the Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department of the State of Telangana has not followed any seniority. In other words, the State has followed pick and choose method without even considering the tentative seniority and the recommendations of the respective heads of the departments, where the employees have been working. We are further surprised that this method has passed muster of the Tribunal. The only justification that is offered by the official respondents and was found acceptance with by the Tribunal is contained in paras-5(a) and (d) of G.O.Rt.No.15, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (C1) Department, dated 06.01.2016, which reads as under:
"5(a) The incumbents shall continue to hold the pay-scale of the substantive lower posts, i.e., that of Deputy Executive Engineer/Executive Engineer and only discharge the duties of the higher post, after assuming charge, essentially as a temporary arrangement.
5(d) It is once again reiterated that this OHOP arrangements are not a recognition of seniority. No rights, equities or claims shall therefore be based on these temporary arrangements. If any incumbent makes any claim based on the arrangements thus effected, Government reserves the right to immediately terminate such in-charge arrangement without any notice and without assigning any reasons thereof."
We fail to understand as to how the above-mentioned paras of G.O.Rt.No.15, dated 06.01.2016, would assuage the feelings of the admitted seniors, who were overlooked for in-charge arrangements. Holding higher posts in public employment is by itself an incentive and overlooking the seniors even while making in-charge arrangements will not only cause distress to them, but it will also have highly demoralising effect on the seniors. Not only that, this method, if approved, would breed nepotism and corruption. In a country governed by the Rule of law this is the last thing that could be accepted.
We hope that wisdom will prevail upon respondent Nos.1 to 3 and they would take remedial steps immediately. Indeed, the learned Government Pleader has vouched for this and stated that within three weeks from today, respondent Nos.1 to 3 will review the in-charge arrangements going by strict seniority, even if the final inter se seniority list has not been approved.
In the light of the above reasons, respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to revisit the in-charge arrangements strictly following the inter se seniority list in the cadre of the Deputy Executive Engineers. The official respondents will take into consideration the adhoc or tentative seniority that is in existence and issue a fresh order within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that status quo as on today shall be maintained till this exercise is completed.
Post on 21.4.2016."
Sd/- K.JAGAN MOHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// For ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To
1. The Special Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Dept., State of Telangana, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad
2. The Engineer-in-Chief (PH) State of Telangana, A.C.Guards, "Kashana", Hyderabad
3. The Commissioner & Special Officer, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, C.C. Complex, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad
4. D.Lachiram, Dy.Executive Engineer, O/o Executive Engineer, Circle-6, GHMC, Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad.
5. P.Mohan Reddy, Dy.Executive Engineer, O/o Executive Engineer, PDWZ-2, GHMC Abids Municipal Complex, Hyderabad.
6. V.Narayana, Dy.Executive Engineer, O/o Executive Engineer, Housing (RR-2), GHMC, NTPC Bhavan, Secunderabad, Hyderabad
7. Syed Faratullah, Dy.Executive Engineer, O/o SE, South Zone, GHMC, Sardar Mahal, Near Charminar, Hyderabad (addressees 1 to 7 BY RPAD)
8. Two CCs to GP for Service (TG), High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT)
9. one CC to Sri P.V. Krishnaiah, Advocate (OPUC)
10. one Spare Copy HIGH COURT AB Drafted on 23-03-2016 CVNRJ & ANIS,J DATE: 18-03-2016 ORDER WP. NO. 9004 OF 2016 DIRECTION